[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: amd64 and dpkg and so

* tbm <tbm@cyrius.com> [2003-08-17 22:33]:
> This is all nice, but if you want to wait for dpkg 2.0 then you
> won't see AMD64 support for sarge.

Oh, well... *shrug*

10:41 < tbm> doogie: do you think you'll have some time soon to look
at arch/opteron support for dpkg?
10:41 < doogie> tbm: it's not going to be part of dpkg 1.10, is that's
what you're asking.
10:41 < tbm> doogie: why not?  is it very complex?
10:41 < doogie> it's a new feature.
10:42 < doogie> 1.10 is the old branch.
10:42 < tbm> so why don't you do 1.11 for sarge?
10:42 < doogie> because too much development has already happened, to
try and stabalize 1.11 for a stable release
10:42 < doogie> tbm: dpkg is a base package.  we have until oct 15 to
finish it.  that's not enough time.
10:43 < tbm> doogie: so why dont you take 1.10, add the arch stuff and
release that as 1.11
10:43 < tbm> doogie: you're aware you're making an opteron port
impossible for sarge?
10:43 < tbm> in a time where all major distros have an opteron port...
10:43 < tbm> in a time where all major distros have an opteron port...
10:44 < dondelelcaro> tbm: are we even ready for an opteron port in
sid or experimental?
10:44 < doogie> tbm: there is no opteron dir on ftp-master.
10:44 < piman> tbm: I'm sure there are, but that doesn't mean it can
be instantly done... Or even done in a month.
10:44 < doogie> tbm: and you're complaining to me about adding s
upport to dpkg?
10:45 < tbm> doogie: because there's no dpkg support.  The dir on
ft-pmaster can be created quickly.
10:45 < doogie> tbm: me adding support to dpkg, it just one small
step.  apt needs to support it.  dak needs to support it.
10:45 < piman> Are other distributions actually shipping Opteron
ports, or are they just shipping 32 bit code?
10:45 < doogie> tbm: no, there is way too much to do, in 6 weeks
10:45 < tbm> doogie: but dpkgis the first step
10:45 < tbm> piman: 64 bit ports
10:45 < mrvn> It could _maybe_ be done in that time but never tested
good enough for even testing.
10:46 < doogie> tbm: if you want a pure 64 bit port, you can do that
now, without much of any changes(just archtable stuff)
10:46 < doogie> tbm: anything else, just shutup.  it's not going to
happen for sarge.  period.
10:46 < mrvn> A 32/64 bit mixed port as planed is a realy big new
feature for dpkg/apt/aptitude/dselect/....
10:46 < doogie> exactly.
10:46 < doogie> Packages.gz needs to support that.
10:46 < tbm> doogie: how difficult would it be to transform to 32/64
mix if we release a 64 only for sarge?
10:47 < doogie> tbm: how can I possibly know that?
10:47 < doogie> we have no 32/64 mix at all, so how can a transition
be planned for it?

Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: